3 ms·

I'd say that the hyperloop has been remarkably good at sucking the air out of the room. Could that be a positive feature, though? It seems that in America, an

I'd say that the hyperloop has been remarkably good at sucking the air out of the room. Could that be a positive feature, though? It seems that in America, and particularly in CA where they're currently arguing heatedly about light rail, there are interests that have captured the industry - it's impossible to construct and operate these conventional technologies for anything short of insane amounts of money. Perhaps it's possible to sidestep all the rent-protecting regulations, etc., by making the conversation about a technology whose regulation has not been thoroughly captured.

Shivetya 11y ago
Well that boondoggle they are building in California isn't light rail. Light rail systems in many cities stifle mass transit effectiveness by sucking all the money out through build out and maintenance that would be better spent on more effective busing and other alternatives. Hyperloop is a heavy rail competition and the one planned in California is a disaster on many fronts, it is pure political in need and desire and hasn't got a viable economic case. The only reason I would see to support a hyperloop is that if it is commercial driven and supported. We don't need more of the same, we need a real game changer that shows true potential to replace other long distance forms of transport. With regards to rail, for all the belly aching about the US not having a large number of people traveling by that means you need to realize that the US by far makes up for this with the freight that moves this way. Also for a much longer time the US had a much cheaper and easier transport by plane than Europe has but even now that is ramped up and continuing to do so.
- JBReefer 11y ago
  Rail changes behavior, buses don't. Rail builds cities in a way that bus systems never have. It's not a simple optimization problem.
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    On the other hand, buses can adapt to changing needs. You can easily add or move stops where the activity warrants. Rail demands that everything else conform to its physical installation.
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      Adaptability means unreliability: the fact that bus stops represent minimal investment is part of the reason they don't drive changes in behavior.

Shivetya 11y ago

Well that boondoggle they are building in California isn't light rail. Light rail systems in many cities stifle mass transit effectiveness by sucking all the money out through build out and maintenance that would be better spent on more effective busing and other alternatives. Hyperloop is a heavy rail competition and the one planned in California is a disaster on many fronts, it is pure political in need and desire and hasn't got a viable economic case. The only reason I would see to support a hyperloop is that if it is commercial driven and supported. We don't need more of the same, we need a real game changer that shows true potential to replace other long distance forms of transport. With regards to rail, for all the belly aching about the US not having a large number of people traveling by that means you need to realize that the US by far makes up for this with the freight that moves this way. Also for a much longer time the US had a much cheaper and easier transport by plane than Europe has but even now that is ramped up and continuing to do so.

JBReefer 11y ago
Rail changes behavior, buses don't. Rail builds cities in a way that bus systems never have. It's not a simple optimization problem.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  On the other hand, buses can adapt to changing needs. You can easily add or move stops where the activity warrants. Rail demands that everything else conform to its physical installation.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    Adaptability means unreliability: the fact that bus stops represent minimal investment is part of the reason they don't drive changes in behavior.